Passage 1　　　
　　Recent years have brought minority-ownedbusinesses in the United States unprecedentedopportunities-as well as new and significant risks.Civil rights activists¹ have long argued that one of（5）　the principal reasons why Blacks， Hispanics， andother minority groups have difficulty establishingthemselves in business is that they lack access tothe sizable orders and subcontracts that are gener-ated by large companies. Now Congress， in appar-（10） ent agreement， has required by law that businessesawarded federal contracts of more than $500，000do their best to find minority subcontractors andrecord their efforts to do so on forms filed with thegovernment. Indeed， some federal and local agen-（15） cies have gone so far as to set specific percentagegoals for apportioning² parts of public works con-tracts to minority enterprises.
　　Corporate³ response appears to have been sub-stantial. According to figures collected in 1977，（20） the total of corporate contracts with minority busi-nesses rose from $77 million in 1972 to $1. lbillionin 1977. The projected total of corporate contractswith minority businesses for the early 1980‘s isestimated to be over 53 billion per year with no（25） letup anticipated in the next decade.　Promising⁴ as it is for minority businesses， thisincreased patronage⁵ poses dangers for them， too.First， minority firms risk expanding too fast andoverextending themselves financially， since most（30） are small concerns and， unlike large businesses，they often need to make substantial investments innew plants， staff， equipment， and the like in orderto perform work subcontracted to them. If， there-after， their subcontracts are for some reason（35） reduced， such firms can face potentially cripplingfixed expenses. The world of corporate purchasingcan be frustrating⁷ for small entrepreneurs who getrequests for elaborate formal estimates and bids.Both consume valuable time and resources， and a（40）　small company’s efforts must soon result inorders， or both the morale⁹ and the financial healthof the business will suffer.
　　A second risk is that White-owned companiesmay seek to cash in on the increasing apportion-（45） ments through formation of joint¹⁰ ventures withminority-owned concerns. Of course， in manyinstances there are legitimate¹¹ reasons for jointventures； clearly， White and minority enterprisescan team up to acquire business that neither could（50） acquire alone. But civil rights groups and minoritybusiness owners have complained to Congress aboutminorities being set up as “fronts” with White back-ing， rather than being accepted as full partners inlegitimate joint ventures.（55）　　　Third， a minority enterprise that secures thebusiness of one large corporate customer often runthe danger of becoming——and remaining-dependent.Even in the best of circumstances， fierce compe-tition from larger， more established companies（60） makes it difficult for small concerns to broadentheir customer bases： when such firms have nearlyguaranteed orders from a single corporate bene-factor， they may truly have to struggle againstcomplacency arising from their current success.

1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
　（A） present a commonplace idea and its inaccuracies
　（B） describe a situation and its potential drawbacks
　（C） propose a temporary solution to a problem
　（D） analyze¹² a frequent source of disagreement
　（E） explore the implications of a finding

2. The passage supplies information that would answer　which of the following questions？
　（A） What federal agencies have set percentage goals for the use of minority-owned businesses in public works contracts？
　（B） To which government agencies must　businesses awarded federal contracts report their　efforts to find minority subcontractors？
　（C） How widespread is the use of minority-owned　concerns as “fronts” by White backers seeking to　obtain subcontracts？
　（D） How many more minority-owned businesses were　there in 1977 than in 1972？
　（E） What is one set of conditions under which a　small business might find itself financially over-extended？　

3. According to the passage， civil rights activists　maintain that one disadvantage under which　minority- owned businesses have traditionally had　to labor⁸ is that they have
　（A） been especially vulnerable to governmental　mismanagement of the economy
　（B） been denied bank loans at rates comparable to　those afforded larger competitors
　（C） not had sufficient opportunity to secure business　created by large corporations
　（D） not been able to advertise in those media that　reach large numbers of potential customers
　（E） not had adequate representation in the centers of government power

4. The passage suggests that the failure of a large　business to have its bids for subcontracts result　quickly in orders might cause it to
　（A） experience frustration¹³ but not serious financial　harm
　（B） face potentially crippling fixed⁶ expenses
　（C） have to record its efforts on forms filed with the　government
　（D） increase its spending with minority　subcontractors
　（E） revise its procedure for making bids for federal　contracts and subcontracts

5. The author implies that a minority-owned concern　that does the greater part of its business with one　large corporate customer should
　（A） avoid competition with larger， more established　　 concerns by not expanding　
　（B） concentrate on securing even more business from that corporation　
　（C） try to expand its customer base to avoid　　 becoming dependent on the corporation　
　（D） pass on some of the work to be done for the　　 corporation to other minority-owned concerns
　（E） use its influence with the corporation to promote　　 subcontracting with other minority concerns

6. It can be inferred from the passage that，compared　with the requirements of law，the percentage goals　set by “some federal and local agencies ”（lines 14-　 15） are
　（A） more popular with large corporations
　（B） more specific
　（C） less controversial
　（D） less expensive to enforce
　（E） easier to comply with

7. Which of the following， if true， would most weaken the　author‘s assertion that， in the 1970’s， corporate　response to federal requirements （lines 18-19） was　substantial
　（A） Corporate contracts with minority-owned　businesses totaled $2 billion in 1979.
　（B） Between 1970 and 1972， corporate contracts with　minority-owned businesses declined by 25　percent.
　（C） The figures collected in 1977 underrepresented　the extent of corporate contracts with minority-owned businesses.
　（D） The estimate of corporate spending with　minority-owned businesses in 1980 is　approximately $10 million too high.
　（E） The $1.1 billion represented the same　percentage of total corporate spending in 1977　as did $77 million in 1972.

8. The author would most likely agree with which of the following statements about corporate response to　working with minority subcontractors？
　（A） Annoyed by the proliferation of “front” organizations，corporations are likely to reduce　their efforts to work with minority-owned　 subcontractors in the near future.
　（B） Although corporations showed considerable　interest in working with minority businesses in the 1970‘s， their aversion to government　paperwork made them reluctant to pursue many government contracts.　
　（C） The significant response of corporations in the 1970‘s is likely to be sustained and conceivably be increased throughout the 1980’s.
　（D） Although corporations are eager to cooperate　with minority-owned businesses， a shortage of　capital in the 1970‘s made substantial response　impossible.
　（E） The enormous corporate response has all but　eliminated the dangers of overexpansion that　used to plague small minority-owned businesses.